Preliminary Statement of the IRI International Observation Mission to Ukraine April 21, 2019 Presidential Election Run-Off | IRI
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
4/22/2019 Preliminary Statement of the IRI International Observation Mission to Ukraine April 21, 2019 Presidential Election Run-Off | IRI Preliminary Statement of the IRI International Observation Mission to Ukraine April 21, 2019 Presidential Election Run-Off APRIL 22, 2019 Overview of the Mission This preliminary statement is offered by the international observation mission of the International Republican Institute for the second round of Ukraine’s presidential election, which took place on April 21. It builds upon IRI’s observations of and ndings from the rst round of voting, which took place on March 31. As a result, the following should be treated as an addendum to the previous statement. Through this statement, IRI seeks to reect the international community’s interest in and support for democratic electoral processes in Ukraine, provide an accurate and impartial report on the electoral process to date, and offer recommendations to consolidate democratic gains and improve future elections. The statement builds upon observations made on Election Day by IRI’s delegation, the ndings of IRI’s long-term observers who deployed across Ukraine in early March, additional reports prepared by the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and other monitoring missions, and supplemental IRI monitoring efforts by its in-country staff. The 40-person mission for the second round was co-led by U.S. Representative John M. Shimkus and IRI Board Member and former Assistant Secretary of State David J. Kramer. The mission included 28 short-term and 12 long-term observers. The areas of responsibility for IRI’s long-term observers were the regions (oblasts) of Volyn and Lviv; Zakarpattia; Odesa; Kherson and Mykolaiv; Zaporizhzhia; and Donetsk and Luhansk. IRI’s short-term observers were deployed to the cities of Mariupol, Odesa, Kharkiv, Dnipro, Zhytomyr, Khmelnytskyi, https://www.iri.org/resource/preliminary-statement-iri-international-observation-mission-ukraine-april-21-2019 1/12 4/22/2019Cherkasy, VinnPreliminaryytsia, L Statementutsk, and of the ar IRIeas International throughout Observation KMissionyiv r toegion. Ukraine AprilThese 21, 2019 ar Presidentialeas wer Electione select Run-Ofedf | IRIin consultation with the U.S. Agency for International Development for their particular relevance to the current political context in Ukraine. The mission conducted its activities in accordance with Ukrainian law and the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation. The mission collaborated closely with the election commission, representatives of political parties and candidates, Ukrainian civil society, media, and local authorities. Additionally, IRI collaborated with NDI and other international monitoring missions supporting the electoral process in Ukraine. The mission is grateful for the hospitality and cooperation it received from the Ukrainian authorities and the various levels of election administration bodies with whom it met, and all other stakeholders supporting the successful implementation of the electoral process. The mission stresses that this statement is preliminary in nature; the tabulation and announcement of ofcial results have not concluded, and IRI will continue to observe the remaining phases of the electoral process. Additionally, the mission recognizes that, ultimately, it is the people of Ukraine who will determine the credibility of these elections. Executive Summary of Findings 1. Ukraine’s voters were generally able to express their will and exercise their right to vote on Election Day in a calm and peaceful environment. Aside from minor non-systemic violations, which did not affect the overall outcome of the election, election-day procedures were implemented in accordance with the law. 2. Overall, the run-off campaign period was generally calm and peaceful. However, negative campaigning detracted from the overall quality of the second-round campaign. This phenomenon, while not unique to Ukraine, distracted voters from hearing candidates’ positions on key issues and making an informed choice. 3. Shortly after polls closed, candidate and incumbent President Petro Poroshenko publicly conceded to his opponent and offered to aid him in his transition to ofce. This commitment, along with what appears to be a peaceful post-election environment, is a strong indicator of Ukraine’s democratic maturity. 4. When considering other countries in the region, the April 19 debate between Petro Poroshenko and Volodymyr Zelenskiy marked a step forward and a new precedent in https://wwwUkr.iri.org/resource/preliminary-statement-iri-international-observation-mission-ukraine-april-21-2019aine’s democracy. Although the debate was replete with negative attacks, it provided2/12 4/22/2019UkrainianPreliminary voters Statementwith their of the IRIrst International (and only)Observation side-b Missiony -sideto Ukraine vie Aprilw 21, of 2019 the Presidential two nal Election candidat Run-Off | IRIes prior to Election Day. 5. The process through which 16 percent of the Ukrainian electorate under direct assault by the Russian Federation (i.e., 12 percent who reside in the occupied regions of the Donbas and Crimea and 4 percent who are internally displaced) are able to vote through a temporary address is cumbersome. While responsibility for this situation lies in Moscow, Ukrainian authorities could have been streamlined to allow for greater participation of these vulnerable populations. Political Background On March 31, 2019, Ukrainians went to the polls to elect their next president. Choosing among a record number of candidates in the second presidential election since Ukraine’s 2013-2014 Revolution of Dignity, voters were found to be able to generally express their will in a calm and peaceful environment. Political newcomer and popular comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, received 30.24 percent of the vote, followed by incumbent, President Petro Poroshenko, with 15.95 percent. Ofcial results were announced by Ukraine’s Central Election Commission (CEC) on April 7, which indicated that 62.86 percent of eligible voters participated. As no candidate received the requisite ‘50 percent plus 1 vote’ to secure a victory, the CEC adopted a resolution calling for a second round of voting on April 21, thereby initiating the run-off campaign period. Pre-Election Environment Second-Round Campaign Environment The two-week second-round campaign period began in accordance with the law on April 8, a day after the Central Election Commission (CEC) announced the results of the rst round. Apart from traditional and social media, which have been actively used by both campaign teams, IRI’s long-term observers (LTOs) and other observation missions found the campaign environment outside of Kyiv to be quiet and outdoor campaign activity to be minimal. Some billboards and posters were visible, though IRI’s LTOs reported very limited sighting of campaign tents or events. Campaigning observed was primarily new billboards, such as Poroshenko’s billboard featuring himself facing off against Putin, and Poroshenko volunteers distributing agitation materials. Conversely, the Zelenskiy campaign, both nationally and at the regional level, continued its campaign strategy from the rst round in which it focused its efforts online, through traditional media, and on billboards. https://www.iri.org/resource/preliminary-statement-iri-international-observation-mission-ukraine-april-21-2019 3/12 4/22/2019Despite recommendationsPreliminary Statement of of IRI’the IRIs rst-rInternationalound Observation obser Missionvation to Ukraine team, April IRI21, 2019 obser Presidentialved negativElection Run-Ofe f | IRI campaigning and “black PR” to be prominent features of the second-round campaign environment. Both the Zelenskiy and Poroshenko campaign teams, while not unique to Ukraine, accused the other side of negative attacks intended to mislead or scare voters. At times, it was unclear whether the negative campaigning was ofcially sanctioned by campaign teams or originated with third party organizations not afliated with either campaign. Negative campaigning and “black PR” against Zelenskiy included accusations of ties to Russia, drug addiction, and being a “virtual candidate.” For example, one video clip shared by a pro-Poroshenko Twitter account on April 8 appeared to show Natalia Poklonskaya, a Russian lawmaker and former prosecutor of Russia-occupied Crimea, endorsing Zelenskiy. Zelenskiy’s campaign logo was added to the clip, suggesting the video was from his campaign. Attacks against Poroshenko, on the other hand, tended to center around corruption scandals and even accused him of killing his own brother, according to one story that aired on the television channel 1+1, which is owned by Ihor Kolomoisky. Though accusations were levied against both sides, to raise awareness of the issue among voters, the Zelenskiy campaign team launched a publicly crowdsourced library of “black PR,” which they claimed originated from the Poroshenko team. Candidate Debate The two second-round candidates spent much of the run-off campaign period in a public dispute over the format and timing of a prospective televised debate to be held prior to Election Day. Although not a state-funded debate per the Ukrainian Election Law, the two candidates appeared together at 19:00hr on April 19, the last day of campaigning, at Kyiv’s Olympic Stadium for a debate before a live audience of approximately 22,000 people and paid for by the campaign funds of each candidate. A debate in this format represents, by all